Right now, you and I share
the road with some 2 million people who’ve been convicted of
drunk driving
three times or more; more than 400,000 were
found guilty
five times or more. On average, these folks
drive drunk 80 times before their first arrest.

Even after they’re caught,
many continue to get behind the wheel again and again for
one reason:
simply because they can.

Armed with these facts, MADD
presses lawmakers to take urgently needed steps to keep your
family, and mine, safe.

If you make a donation of $25 of more, I’ll send you a
FREE hardcover copy of
Road Rules,
an inspiring book is about how the time spent behind the
wheel teaches you about life's most meaningful lessons.

MADD’s
Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving is the
definitive road map for putting the brakes on drunk driving
and the grief it causes. Already, MADD has saved nearly
300,000 lives, and with your help, we can do so much more!

Your gift today will help
fight for tougher laws that force offenders to use alcohol
interlock devices, keeping them from driving drunk — period.
These devices alone could save 3,000 lives a year!

Wishing you safe journeys on
the road of life,

Jan Withers
MADD National President

PS. Thank you in advance for your support. If you
aren’t able to make a gift today, please support the
Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving by
emailing your legislators to let them know that
each drunk driver should have to have an interlock that
prevents them from driving drunk again.

“Some people don’t follow the rules of the road. I learned
this in the most horrible way possible …”

Those words
begin the heartbreaking, yet hopeful foreword to Andrew
Sherman’s book,
Road Rules, written by Laura Dean-Mooney, past
national president of MADD, who tells the crushing story of
how a drunk driver killed her young husband Mike, and how
she and their eight-month-old baby coped with the terrible
loss.

One article that really stands out to me is
Death
Notification, about the importance of learning how to deliver tragic news
with compassion.

The article share two very different stories from Andie Rehkamp and Desiree
Garcia about how they received the news that their loved one had died in a drunk
driving crash. One of these women was fortunate enough to be notified about the
loss of their loved one from an officer and a chaplain who were patient and
compassionate towards her, while the other received an insensitive notification
without complete honesty.

When a sudden and violent death occurs, there is no time to prepare or to say
goodbye. Those told of the death of a loved one can react in many ways.
Calm, reassuring professionals who provide care and compassionate communication
can help maintain a sense of balance. During these moments, family members
need this kind of presence to help them cope. They also need all of their
questions answered honestly.

Handling a death notification with compassion is a gift for grieving families
that cannot be underestimated. MADD works extensively with law enforcement
across the country to make sure they are prepared for those vital early
interactions with someone in grief.

I hope you enjoy this issue of
MADDvocate
as much as I did, and please
forward it
to anyone you know who might benefit from one or more of the articles.

Warm regards,

Jan Withers
MADD National President

Drivers Against MADD Mania

Mothers Against Drunk Driving Mania

"In 2008, an
estimated 11,773 people died in
drunk
driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or
greater). These deaths constitute 31.6 percent of the 37,261 total
traffic fatalities in 2008. (Source:
NHTSA, 2009)"

The above statement from MADD is
patently, provably, criminally WRONG. But even if you accepted
their above claim at face value, you still must question why it is that
sober drivers are TWICE as likely as drinking drivers to kill someone on
the highways. However, if you do your OWN research of the very
FARS database they claim this information came
from, you will discover that less than 4% of the DRIVERS (not
passengers, or bystanders, or pedestrians, or bicyclists) involved in
fatal accidents have a BAC greater than .10. This means that SOBER
drivers are TWENTY FOUR TIMES (24X) more likely to have a fatal accident
than DRINKING drivers with a BAC greater than .10.

Man Driver Must Drink 7 Drinks to Drive as
Dangerously as a Sober Woman Driver

"The
analysis by Connolly, Kimball, and Moulton (1989) mentioned above
suggests that female drivers have both a higher overall crash risk and a
higher alcohol-related fatal-crash risk. Combined data from FARS and the
1986 National Roadside Breathtesting Survey suggest that the relative
fatal-crash risk of a female driver with a BAC of 0.10% or more could be
of the order of 50% higher than it is for a male driver at the same BAC.
Of course, estimates based on these two unmatched data sets are, as
indicated above, are only very rough, but they are consistent with prior
case-control studies (see Jones and Joscelyn 1978).

Yet this doesn't even take into account teen drivers whose
accident rate when sober is so high that NHTSA readily admits that
drinking alcohol is hardly a factor. Or Mexican drivers, many of
whom come straight from Mexico where drivers are
four TIMES more likely to have a fatal accident than us. Or
Black drivers whose cousins back in Kenya are 160 TIMES more likely, or
in Ethiopia are 590 TIMES as likely. Or women drivers who NHTSA
admits are fifty percent more likely than men at any BAC level,
including ZERO, to CAUSE a fatal accident. Or the 55 MPH speed limit
which killed forty eight THOUSAND drivers in California alone.

For proof that both MADD and AAIM are based on mass
hysteria and not facts, see the more than 1,000 replies to the
AOL
forum (all of which have recently been mysteriously removed) or more than 600 answers on
Yedda all of which suddenly came to a screeching halt the instant the
spreaders of mass hysteria got a jolt of facts from the NHTSA database: women
drivers are 50% more likely than men drivers to have a fatal accident, but men
drivers with a BAC of 0.10 are only 30% more likely. What they suddenly
realized is that in order for a man to be as likely to drive as
dangerously as a sober woman driver, he must have seven drinks, or a BAC
greater than .10.

WASHINGTON (Oct.
20) � Chief
Justice John
Roberts spoke
out in vain
Tuesday against
a lower court
ruling he says
will �grant
drunk drivers
�one free
swerve�� that
could
potentially end
someone�s life.

Roberts wanted
the Supreme
Court to review
the lower court
ruling but he
failed to
persuade enough
of his
colleagues. The
court declined
to hear an
appeal from
Virginia
officials who
had their drunk
driving
conviction of
Joseph A. Moses
Harris, Jr.
thrown out by
that state�s
Supreme Court.
Police were
notified by an
anonymous
tipster that
Harris was
driving
intoxicated, but
the arresting
officer did not
see Harris break
any traffic
laws.

While Chief
Justice John
Roberts argued
that police need
�every
legitimate tool
at their
disposal for
getting drunk
drivers off the
road,� his
colleagues
declined to
review a lower
court decision
on the issue.

The majority of the justices did not say why they did not take the case, but Roberts in a written dissent, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the Virginia court�s decision will put people in danger.

�The decision below commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road � by which time it may be too late,� Roberts wrote.

Roberts noted that close to 13,000 people die in alcohol-related car crashes a year, which equals to one death every 40 minutes.

Roberts said a majority of the courts have said it doesn�t violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure to pull over drunk drivers based on anonymous tips from programs like the �Drunk Busters Hotline.�

But some courts, including some in Wyoming, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have agreed with Virginia in saying that police must see a traffic violation before pulling over a suspected drunk driver based on an anonymous tip.

The Supreme Court should have stepped in and made the rule clear, Roberts said.

�The stakes are high. The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers ��one free swerve� before they can be legally pulled over by police,� Roberts said. �It will be difficult for an officer to explain to the family of a motorist killed by that swerve that the police had a tip that the driver of the other car was drunk, but that they were powerless to pull him over, even for a quick check.�

Richmond, Va., police were called on the morning of Dec. 31, 2005, and told that an intoxicated Harris was driving a green Altima down the street. A police officer saw Harris drive slowly through an intersection where he didn�t have to stop and put on his brake lights well in advance of a red light.

Harris then pulled over to the side of the road, where the police officer smelled alcohol on his breath. Harris also failed the field sobriety tests, but the police officer did not see him break any traffic laws.

Harris was convicted of driving while intoxicated, but the Virginia Supreme Court threw out his conviction. The court said since the police officer did not see erratic driving behavior like swerving, there was not a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant the stop.

Harris�s lawyer said the Supreme Court should let that decision stand because �society�s reasonable expectation of privacy requires some facts to support the tipster�s allegation that the driver was intoxicated.�

If that�s correct and the Fourth Amendment bans the use of anonymous tips on drunk drivers without police verification, �the dangerous consequences of this rule are unavoidable,� Roberts said. �But the police should have every legitimate tool at their disposal for getting drunk drivers off the road. I would grant certiorari to determine if this is one of them.�

The World Health Organization
reports the following rate of
fatalities in each nation, with
the safest drivers being in San
Marino where there�s one
fatality for each 51,590 cars
and the most dangerous being the
Central African Republic at 1
fatality for each TEN cars
(5,159 TIMES more dangerous than
San Marino).
Where do you think American
drunk drivers fall on this list?
Do you think they are they safer
than drivers in Gambia who have
one fatal accident for every 267
cars? Or drivers in Niger who
have one fatal accident for
every 133 cars?

Drivers with a BAC greater
than 0.02 and less than 0.08
actually have a thirty percent
less chance of having a fatal
accident that drivers with a BAC
of 0.

Thus they have 1 fatal
accident for every 7,665 cars
rather than the average for the
US of 1/5,896.

Drivers with a BAC of 2.0
have a thirty percent greater
chance of having an accident
than drivers with a BAC of 0, so
their fatal accident rate is 1
fatal accident for every 4,127
cars. This makes them half as
dangerous as the average driver
in the Marshall Islands and
almost twice as dangerous as the
average driver in Canada.

The College Board reports that
there�s a 240 SAT point gap
between Catholics and
Protestants, which undoubtedly
would make Catholics much worse
drivers than Protestants.
If Roberts� principles were
carried to their logical
conclusions, police would be
required to stop people to make
sure they aren�t Catholics,
arrest them if they are, most
likely preventing more traffic
deaths than stopping drinking
drivers.

Do you agree with the CA Supreme
Court that a citizen�s tip alone
is sufficient to justify a dui
stop?
What other dangerous activities
do you believe the police should
respond to? What about driving
while being a woman, or driving
while Black? Do you think these
are more or less dangerous than
driving while drinking?
How about driving with a baby in
the car, or while drowsey, or as
a teenager (whose accident rate
is so high that the HNTSA says
that drinking hardly has an
effect on their poor driving)?
How about driving as a Mexican,
or an Indian? India has one
fatal accident per 688 vehicles,
which makes Indian drivers 8
times more dangerous than
American drivers who have one
fatal accident per 5,896
vehicles?

If they want snitches, man oh
man, can we give them snitches.
The opportunities are limitless.
Short people are probably more
dangerous than 90% of drinking
drivers�snitch on �em.
Football players who drive small
Japanese cars LOOK like they�re
an accident looking for a place
to happen�SNITCH ON �EM.
Looking for a way to get even
with that boyfriend who had sex
and never called�SNITCH ON �EM,
that�ll get their attention.
Want to earn that extra income?
At the rate we�re going
downhill, you�ll soon get
$10,000 just for snitching on a
woman driver who crossed over
the line while on her cell
phone. SNITCH ON HER, cops will
never know.
Don�t like that noisy VW that
drives down the canyon every
morning? SNITCH ON �EM.

�Final Report, Alcohol
Highway Safety: Problem Update�
�The analysis by Connolly,
Kimball, and Moulton (1989)
mentioned above suggests that
female drivers have both a
higher overall crash risk and a
higher alcohol-related
fatal-crash risk. Combined data
from FARS and the 1986 National
Roadside Breathtesting Survey
suggest that the relative
fatal-crash risk of a female
driver with a BAC of 0.10% or
more could be of the order of
50% higher than it is for a male
driver at the same BAC. Of
course, estimates based on these
two unmatched data sets are, as
indicated above, are only very
rough, but they are consistent
with prior case-control studies
(see Jones and Joscelyn 1978).
�Donovan et al. (1990) examined
the driver records of a 1%
sample of all licensed drivers
in the State of Washington in
1979. They found that, overall,
2.1% of these 39,011 drivers
were arrested for DWI during a
three-year follow-up period.
However, these rates were quite
different for male and female
drivers, the rate for males
being 3.4% compared to only 0.7%
for females.�
If true, this would mean that
American men have one fatal
accident for every 6,622 cars
and American women have one
every 4,412 cars.
iow, your own government has
already established that women
drivers drive more dangerously
than most men drivers who drink.
Can you even imagine what
Justice Roberts would be
proposing next if he were to get
away with establishing tips to
the police as a normal practice?

It�s already
been established
by NHTSA that
women drivers
have a higher
crash risk than
drinking men
drivers, and
that at each BAC
level women have
a higher crash
risk than men
drivers. That�s
a matter of
public record,
not based on a
tip, or
speculation.
Most of the
drivers I�ve
seen drift
across the lane
are women
drivers on cell
phones, or even
worse, putting
on make up. What
tarspir1
advocates would
inevitably lead
to drivers
calling the cops
to tip them off
about women
drivers.

�If they have
a legitmate tip
that someoneis
drunk and is out
driving. They
should have the
authority to
pull that person
over to
ascertain if the
person is drunk
or not. Why wait
till the driver
causes and
accident or a
fatality.�

Not even
sleeping through
your entire
instruction on
the US
Constitution
would explain
how someone
could be so
oblivious of
some basic FACTS
about a
republic.

Not even
smoking dope,
taking heroine,
using aspartame,
taking every flu
vaccine, being
pumped up on
steroids, and
chemotherapy
could make
someone THIS
stupid.

�That�s
ridiculous.
Though I
appreciate the
spirit in which
people are
trying to
protect the
rights of
individuals, I�d
much rather try
to protect the
lives of so many
who are
threatened by
irresponsible,
criminial
behaviors by
those who drive
intoxicated. The
problem is scary
and growing.
Look at how many
have voted and
agree with Judge
Roberts.�

�Let�s see; I
see a guy who�s
been drinking
all night. He
leaves to go
home, gets in
his car, swerves
through the lot
and drives away.
Three Scenarios�
1). I report him
to the cops as a
drunk driving
suspect, he�s
pulled over,
given a
breathalizer,
found
intoxicated and
arrested.
2). I report him
to the cops as a
drunk driving
suspect, he�s
pulled over,
found sober, and
drives on to his
home.
3). I report him
to the cops as a
drunk driving
suspect, but
it�s illegal to
pull him over.
On his way home,
he hits an
oncoming car and
kills a family
of five.
If you suspect
that I don�t
know what I�m
talking about, I
will inform you
that I have more
knowledge,
insight and
experience than
most. I have:
family members
and friends
representing all
sides of this
issue, pro and
con; 4 drunk
drivers; 3
excellent
defense
attorneys; a
court
administrator; a
referee; a
judge; and
dozens of
victims;
�two killed by
drunk drivers
(my favorite
aunt who was
decapitated);
�my closest
friend (killed
on my birthday);
�all of our
friends and
family members.
It�s my
fundamental
right to drive
without having
to worry about
drunken drivers
who can afford a
good lawyer and
continue to
drive (even with
repeated
warnings and
arrests and
suspended
licenses)�

But there�s
more from this
MORON:

�There�s a
50% chance that
the tip is
legitimate; a
good reason to
pull the driver
over and check
it out (my
opinion). Those
of us who have
lost a loved one
to drunk driving
applaud Chief
Justice Robert�s
stand. I wonder
what percentage
of those
supporting
leniency have
been caught
driving while
intoxicated!�

Thanks to
liberals like
Roberts, this
nation has
dedicated
hundreds of
billions of
dollars to fight
drinking and
driving, only to
end up with the
World Health
Organization
reporting that
you are almost
three times more
likely to die on
our highways
than in
countries like
Switzerland who
didn�t benefit
from MADD�s or
AIIM�s wisdom.
We obviously
shot at the
wrong target,
yet Roberts
wants to keep
shooting at it.
There are three
MAJOR, OBVIOUS,
elephant-standing-in-the-room
factors which
far, far exceed
any contribution
by drinking and
driving. By
ignoring those
other three
factors, and
continuing down
the current
path, the
problem cannot
possibly be
solved, and we
will continue to
have more than
30,000 traffic
deaths annually
that could
otherwise be
*easily*
prevented.

Women
truckers have 5
times as many
accidents per
mile driven as
men truckers.
Even though
there aren�t
that many of
them, I already
see the problem
every time I�m
on the open
road. This means
they have an
accident rate
equivalent to
men truckers who
have a BAC of
0.12. In order
for the average
man trucker to
get that drunk,
he has to drink
seven drinks in
short order, and
not have
anything to eat.
Why doesn�t MADD
go after sober
women truckers
rather than
drinking men
truckers, 99% of
whom never have
a BAC as high as
0.12,
particularly not
when they drive?

You say �If a
driver who has
been drinking
wrecks into
someone or
something or
impedes traffic
in anyway,
arrest him or
her�, but why
not arrest
ANYONE who does
those things?
While Roberts
repeats the
liberal canard
that 14,000
fatal accidents
involve drivers
who have been
drinking, I�ve
researched the
actual FARS
database ten
ways plus Sunday
and get only 3%
to a maximum of
7%. This means
that you are 13
to 32 TIMES more
likely to be
killed in a
traffic accident
by drivers who
did NOT drink
and drive than
by drivers who
DID. Using your
logic, the only
way to solve the
problem is to
just
automatically
arrest all women
drivers who we
KNOW are more
dangerous than
the drunkest man
driver.

Drivers with
a BAC greater
than 0.02 and
less than 0.08
actually have a
thirty percent
less chance of
having a fatal
accident that
drivers with a
BAC of 0.Thus
they have 1
fatal accident
for every 7,665
cars rather than
the average for
the US of
1/5,896.Drivers
with a BAC of
2.0 have a
thirty percent
greater chance
of having an
accident than
drivers with a
BAC of 0, so
their fatal
accident rate is
1 fatal accident
for every 4,127
cars. This makes
them half as
dangerous as the
average driver
in the Marshall
Islands and
almost twice as
dangerous as the
average driver
in Canada.

The College
Board reports
that there�s a
240 SAT point
gap between
Catholics and
Protestants,
which
undoubtedly
would make
Catholics much
worse drivers
than
Protestants.
If Roberts�
principles were
carried to their
logical
conclusions,
police would be
required to stop
people to make
sure they aren�t
Catholics,
arrest them if
they are, most
likely
preventing more
traffic deaths
than stopping
drinking
drivers.

skidove12
(thinks this
answer is
Helpful)
�silverz, in
todays society
and techonogly
there ways to
tell who the
person is who
made the call
with the tip. In
TN there is a
law that will
punish a person
that gives a
false statement
to a police
officer.�

The most
dangerous driver
on the road is
an 18 year old,
who in in 2008
was involved in
2,622 fatal
accidents,
representing
3.1% of the
84,026 Americans
involved in
fatal accidents.
797 of them had
a BAC of zero or
less than .10,
1,656 were not
suspected of
drinking and
driving and thus
were not tested
or the test was
unknown, and 169
or 6.4% of them
had a BAC
greater than
.10.
Across the age
range from 16 to
24, young sober
drivers were 15
TIMES more
likely to be
involved in a
fatal accident
than young
drinking
drivers,
explaining why
NHTSA reports
that their
accident rate is
so high that
their impairment
from drinking
alcohol is
almost a
non-factor.
But there�s more
to it than meets
the eye. Young
drivers also
brag a lot, and
in fact engage a
lot, in drinking
and driving,
with college
students
reporting that
50-75% of them
DO drink and
drive. If so,
and if drinking
and driving DOES
increase the
probability of
having an
accident only
slightly, then
THAT is
precisely the
time one would
expect them to
be involved in a
fatal accident.
This means that
young teen
drivers who
drink actually
drive SAFER,
much safer, than
those who do
not.

Schaumburg, June
27, 2006:
Since
1990, the
Alliance Against
Intoxicated
Motorists (AAIM)
has conducted an
annual survey of
Illinois police
departments to
determine how
many DUI arrests
they make and to
give recognition
to the most
productive
departments and
police officers.
Over 700 police
agencies were
surveyed with
57% responding.
The most
important
deterrent to
drunk driving is
law enforcement.
AAIM not only
praises these
departments and
individual
officers, but we
also want to
encourage them
to keep up the
fight against
drunk driving
and its paid
off.

The Naperville
Police
Department has
finished first
in the state in
DUI arrests
among municipal
departments with
717 arrests for
2005. (Because
of its size,
Chicago is in
its own
category.)
Naperville has
been a perennial
top-ten police
department in
AAIM�s DUI
ranking with
being the top
department the
last three out
of four years.
According to
Chief David
Dial, impaired
driving
enforcement has
been and
continues to be
a priority for
the Naperville
Police
Department. �We
have more people
killed or
injured in
traffic
accidents than
all other crimes
combined and it
is a significant
safety issue for
Naperville and
we will stay on
top of it,� said
Chief Dial.

The highest DUI
arrest rate in
the state among
departments
making at least
100 arrests was
Caseyville (near
East St. Louis)
which had 19.6
arrests per
sworn officer.
The second
highest rate of
13.0 was in
Creve Coeur
(near Peoria).
Arrests per
officer is an
indicator of a
department�s
emphasis on DUI
enforcement.

Chicago Police
Officer John
Haleas was
Illinois� Top
Cop with 374 DUI
arrests making
his career total
over 1,000 DUI
arrests. AAIM
also commends
the life-saving
efforts of
Chicago Police
Officers Timothy
Walter with 214
arrests and
Albert Krueger
with 188
arrests, also
Springfield
Police Officer
David Dyer with
180 arrests.
Illinois State
Police Trooper
Gregory Hart
arrested 214
drunk drivers
and Trooper Chad
R. Martinez
arrested 200.
�When police
chiefs make it a
priority to get
impaired drivers
off the roads,
lots of arrests
are made. Each
of these
individual
officers makes
more DUI arrests
per year than
the majority of
whole police
departments in
Illinois. These
officers deserve
recognition and
thanks for their
diligence in
promoting public
safety,� said
Charlene
Chapman,
Executive
Director.

�More DUI
arrests in the
Northwest and
south suburbs
and in Will and
Winnebego
Counties don�t
necessarily mean
there are more
drunk drivers in
those regions
than in the rest
of the state,�
said Chapman.
�It does
indicate a more
active
enforcement
effort targeting
DUI by those
departments
compared to
other
departments.�

The biggest
increases in
arrests among
the top
departments were
in Skokie where
DUI arrests
jumped by 107%
in 2005 compared
to 2004,
Evanston (54%),
Carpentersville
(53%), Palatine
(46%), Bartlett
(36%), and
Champaign (35%).
"It�s highly
unlikely that
such big
increases in
arrests indicate
corresponding
increases in
impaired drivers
on the roads in
those towns; it
just means more
of them were
being detected
and arrested
last year
compared to
previous years,�
said Chapman,
who has been
conducting the
annual survey
for AAIM since
1990.

Chicago police
made more
arrests in 2005
(6,896) than in
2004 (6,755),
while Illinois
State Police
increased
arrests by 10%
in 2005 (9,102)
compared to 2004
(8,594). The
sheriff�s
department
reporting the
most DUI arrests
was in Will
County (436),
while Winnebago
(368), LaSalle
(323), Lake
(294) and Cook
(276) Counties
round out the
top five sheriff
departments.

AAIM is a
citizen�s
activist group
founded in 1982
by victims of
drunk driving.
Prevention,
victim advocacy,
and legislation
encompass the
mission of AAIM.
The survey
provides a
valuable service
by encouraging
citizens to
compare the DUI
enforcement
record of their
local police
department with
that of other
communities. As
a result, public
pressure can be
applied, where
needed, to make
DUI enforcement
a priority.

Thanks to liberals like Roberts, this nation has dedicated hundreds of billions of dollars to fight drinking and driving, only to end up with the World Health Organization reporting that you are almost three times more likely to die on our highways than in countries like Switzerland who didn't benefit from MADD's or AIIM's wisdom. We obviously shot at the wrong target, yet Roberts wants to keep shooting at it. There are three MAJOR, OBVIOUS, elephant-standing-in-the-room factors which far, far exceed any contribution by drinking and driving. By ignoring those other three factors, and continuing down the current path, the problem cannot possibly be solved, and we will continue to have more than 30,000 traffic deaths annually that could otherwise be *easily* prevented.

Women truckers have 5 times as many accidents per mile driven as men truckers. Even though there aren't that many of them, I already see the problem every time I'm on the open road. This means they have an accident rate equivalent to men truckers who have a BAC of 0.12. In order for the average man trucker to get that drunk, he has to drink seven drinks in short order, and not have anything to eat. Why doesn't MADD go after sober women truckers rather than drinking men truckers, 99% of whom never have a BAC as high as 0.12, particularly not when they drive?

You say "If a driver who has been drinking wrecks into someone or something or impedes traffic in anyway, arrest him or her", but why not arrest ANYONE who does those things? While Roberts repeats the liberal canard that 14,000 fatal accidents involve drivers who have been drinking, I've researched the actual FARS database ten ways plus Sunday and get only 3% to a maximum of 7%. This means that you are 13 to 32 TIMES more likely to be killed in a traffic accident by drivers who did NOT drink and drive than by drivers who DID. Using your logic, the only way to solve the problem is to just automatically arrest all women drivers who we KNOW are more dangerous than the drunkest man driver.

Here's my feeling on this- no harm, no foul. If a driver who has been drinking doesn't wreck into anybody or anything, and does not impede traffic, let him or her drive to his or her destination without so much as a warning. If a driver who has been drinking wrecks into someone or something or impedes traffic in anyway, arrest him or her.

The analysis by Connolly, Kimball, and Moulton (1989) mentioned above suggests that female drivers have both a higher overall crash risk and a higher alcohol-related fatal-crash risk. Combined data from FARS and the 1986 National Roadside Breathtesting Survey suggest that the relative fatal-crash risk of a female driver with a BAC of 0.10% or more could be of the order of 50% higher than it is for a male driver at the same BAC. Of course, estimates based on these two unmatched data sets are, as indicated above, are only very rough, but they are consistent with prior case-control studies (see Jones and Joscelyn 1978).

Drivers with a BAC greater than 0.02 and less than 0.08 actually have a thirty percent less chance of having a fatal accident that drivers with a BAC of 0.Thus they have 1 fatal accident for every 7,665 cars rather than the average for the US of 1/5,896.Drivers with a BAC of 2.0 have a thirty percent greater chance of having an accident than drivers with a BAC of 0, so their fatal accident rate is 1 fatal accident for every 4,127 cars. This makes them half as dangerous as the average driver in the Marshall Islands and almost twice as dangerous as the average driver in Canada.

Do you agree with the CA Supreme Court that a citizen's tip alone is sufficient to justify a dui stop?What other dangerous activities do you believe the police should respond to? What about driving while being a woman, or driving while Black? Do you think these are more or less dangerous than driving while drinking?How about driving with a baby in the car, or while drowsey, or as a teenager (whose accident rate is so high that the HNTSA says that drinking hardly has an effect on their poor driving)?How about driving as a Mexican, or an Indian? India has one fatal accident per 688 vehicles, which makes Indian drivers 8 times more dangerous than American drivers who have one fatal accident per 5,896 vehicles?

So I guess, if someone calls an anonoymous tip in that a driver is out there waving his gun or engages in shooting people as he drives through neighborhoods... as long as the cop doesn't SEE a crime happening, he can't REASONABLY be expected to pull the driver over to see whether he has a gun, or if its been fired recently. And I suppose all you LIBS out there would be ok with that... until you found out that one of the victims was YOUR family member... then you'd be screaming bloody murder... and blame George Bush for not hiring more committed police officers.

Lets see: (1) the police were notified by an anonymous tipster that hassir was driving intoxicated. ok, good. (2) no traffic laws broken, police saw harris drive slowly through an intersection where he didn't have to stop, put on his brake light wellll in advance of a stop light.(3) There was not a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant the stop. LOL Somethings wrong with Roberts.(4) society's reasonable expectation of privancy requires some facts to support thetipster's allegation that the driver was intoxicated. It sounds like a dispute with his wife or friend after they had a little too much to drink. So harris maned up and left. She didn't like that. LOL

I totally disagree with Roberts and Scalia. If you follow their rulings and what they are syaing in this case, we'd all be living in a police stae. Yes, drunk driving is in issue, so is murder. Do we want to stop everyone who is carrying a gun or looks angry because they may do harm to someone? His reasoning sound very "Minority Report " to me.

Judge Roberts is totally correct. Those of you who disagree should have a relative killed by a drunk driver and you'll change your minds very quickly.Better yet the legislators in all those states and the supreme court justices who disagreed with Judge Roberts should have the same happen to one of their relatives and then youll see them all come to their senses and make it legal for police officers to stop all drunk drivers who have not commited crimes while driving drunk.The same goes for the idiots who think this will "violate" their civil liberties. The only people who are violated are the victims and their families.

I agree with Judge Roberts, 100%. I also thought Harris getting let go was wrong. He failed a DUI, that means he was drunk and driving. Period.The reason it was really thrown out of court is politics. There are a lot of politicians that this would affect, right? If they get caught after leaving their cocktail parties, dinners, etc. driving after drinking they would be in troubbbllleee..... don't want to be front page news.....I'm just saying...Peace.Michele

How about random checkpoints? Why are they legal? I am all for getting drunks off the road but am very much against the random warrantless/no probable cause check point Charlies. Cops are now employed for two reasons, To draw a line around dead bodies and to generate revenue. Follow the cash. That is where the answer is.

Cops pull people over for anything they want anyway, ever watch TV cop shows??? They will search your car to for any reason they come up with. Taillight out, tinted windows, slow driving, crossing the orange line, no signal, burned out headlight, 3 miles over the limit, OR they will make one up too! Besides they can just say you were swerving, does not matter what happend anyway. Cops do lie!

timjofred, If Justice Roberts is a "neo-con reactionary" for endorsing the annymous tipster rule in enforcing DUI rules (which I completely disagree with), would that make Premier Obama a "neo-con reactionary" for endorsing his neighbor snitching on neighbor policy ????

strawberries i don't drink alone & never drive. after i have like old dads did like TAR rays dad Vicitor ray did & killed a 18 year old girl see WHY when michel hit them 2 young girls even madd MADDOFF via loop holes justice 4 1 50 marry jim & terrie wendy shoes ink winkie. sealy serta or medeO grass @ tip top semen but forgeet to race better sober(*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````````` but we all like corona extra with shots of maskel 10 50 2

chaeaperbird5: I agree. States should not permit roadside sobriety checkpoints. It clogs traffic and ruins the tavern business. Of course, the city where I live, you can reside almost anywhere and easily walk to a tavern. I have seven within a few blocks and I live in a nice neighborhood.

People that agreed with the neo-con reactionary Roberts do not understand American Jurisprudence. In states that allow tipsters this would not have mattered. However, if the state wants to make a case for using tipsters then they need to change the law. Otherwise, police need probable cause in order to stop someone, which means that the suspects are driving in a way that suggests that they are impaired. Roberts wants to apply a standard that is not allowed by the state from which this case comes. He wants to legislate from the bench as an activist judge. It is amazing how repubs bloviate about activist judges but have no real understanding about what that means. Justice Roberts would also violate the conservative interest of respect for state rights if he had his way on this issue. He has just showed his true colors that right wing neo-con activism can ignore even the most hallowed tenets of conservatism. I could go on. For instance, State laws that allow "Death with Dignity" and the u...

RWA325 02:07 PMOct 21 2009 >>>>>>DON'T CUT OBAMA SHORT, US DUMB ASSES IS WHO VOTED HIM IN, YOU KNOW HE IS READING THIS,>>>>>>>>ROBY 5L said, "OBAMA LISTEN UP, WE DON'T WANT YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE NO MATER HOW GOOD IT SOUNDS, AS LONG AS ITS GOVERNMENT RUN WE DON'T WANT IT, WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT THAT ,THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING GOVERNMENT RUN, GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD, IF YOU GOT ONE, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN SENSE YOU FOR GET EASY, WE DON'T YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE PERIOD............ GET IT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'm sure the president of the USA is monitoring this semi-worthless board on drunk driving just in case some bird brained idiot that failed English class wants to send him a personal message about his health care plan. NOT

virusjc1 the laws were arbitrarily made..they are not fair...they have created a hot bed for bad cops to make extra bonuses from...i know a cop who made 42,000 bonus in 1 year..this is not law enforcement ..this is crime..!..the newest version of the dui laws..is really way-over the-top...you can stil get a dui....even if you blow...a .07 ,or lower...it's too much bullsh*t...your reasoning has come from a quick move of the tongue without thinking.

Hayesronaboo: That happened to me, but my car was parked. I took a sobriety test and failed. The officer said 'take a hike and don't go back to your car for two hours - or we WILL arrest you.' Twenty miles? That's okay too.Others, remember, in most states a first DUI is a traffic violation and will eventually be expunged. Any more is a misdemeanor and never expunged. In my state, a 5th is a felony. Personally, I feel a 5th is too long to go without charging a felony.

the only reason the lower courts want that "FREE ONE SWERVE" is because they are all a bunch of drunk driving alcoholics! I'm totally against it! If you choose to drink and drive, then choose to suffer the consequences! and possibly choose to make some one else & their family suffer for your poor judgement and ignorance!

ROBY 5L said, "OBAMA LISTEN UP, WE DON'T WANT YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE NO MATER HOW GOOD IT SOUNDS, AS LONG AS ITS GOVERNMENT RUN WE DON'T WANT IT, WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT THAT ,THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING GOVERNMENT RUN, GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD, IF YOU GOT ONE, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN SENSE YOU FOR GET EASY, WE DON'T YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE PERIOD............ GET IT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'm sure the president of the USA is monitoring this semi-worthless board on drunk driving just in case some bird brained idiot that failed English class wants to send him a personal message about his health care plan. NOT!!!

xxannie1978 01:55 PMOct 21 2009 >>>>>YOU WILL NEVER SEE ANYTHING ABOUT OBAMA ON AOL TO COMMENT ABOUT, YOU JUST HAVE TO JUMP IN WITH IT SOMETIME>>>>>>>>>>>>Roby, get some help, this story is NOT about President Obama's health care....you obviously suffer from "posting tourette syndrome".

I'm glad Roberts is speaking out. I followed a drunk driver who was taking up both our lane and the oncoming one. Swerving to the right and causing the snowbank on the side of the road to roostertail and then swerving to the oncoming and doing the same on that side of the road. It was rush hour and the traffic behind me started blowing their horns, quite angry that I wouldn't let them pass. However, there was a truck full of propane in the oncoming lane and I predicted there would be trouble. I flashed my headlights, the truckdriver saw what I did and pulled over and stopped just in time for the drunk to have his predicted accident. The people behind me safely got through and then saw why I didn't want them to pass. No one was hurt but it could have been a disaster. Would I rather have an officer called beforehand and have the man arrested? You bet. Sometimes you have to react and, hopefully, save a life.

NYCCPR: I meant to blog, 'detain' instead of 'stop.' The officer DID stop the driver but did not detain him. Many think any anyomous tip is evidence. I say 'bullroar.' Scorned women call the police on innocent guys just because there are 'fifty ways to leave your lover.' What sumbags!

cheaperbird5 01:57 PMOct 21 2009 the DUI LAWS are way outta hand as it is...put the BAC NO.,back to ; .12..where it used to be..that's more fair than this garbage...you knuckleheads who believe in this new law..need to be straightened out..your letting your moral judgement get in the way of practicallity..you people are going to cry the blues when it happens to you ,or somebody you care about..and for you non-drinkers...go find something better to do than to harass the drinkers...if that's the only immorality we have....then i think...we're doin real well..!..go to ; motorists.org for a better humane DUI LAW..these new laws were arbitrarily made and need to be changed..!-------------------The number was lowered because of the amount of deaths and injuries involved. Also, BAC affects everyone differently. Some people could be at .12 and be perfectly fine, while at the same time others are drunk. This is the problem. The way alcohol reacts in your system is easily based on ...

I think the officer had the right to pull over the driver because he was reported by a citizen of the United States to be driving while intoxicated and evidently had good cause to report him if he didn't pass the sobriety test and the citizen had the right to report him annonymously and I think anybody who thinks different doesn't have enough moral value of life to feel any different. I'm not saying Alcohol is always the culprit but there is no sense in getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and taking a chance when you aren't alert and on top of your reactions and then harming another life or destroying others property when there are plenty of alternative methods of getting home, such as a designated driver, a cab, or using your own two feet so if you do hurt someone it's yourself and nobody else.

Fortunatly even though the Court has a 5 to 4 Conservative majority,the other conservative Justices do not agree with the Chief Justice and Justice Scalia on what should be an obvious ruling. ANONYMOUS TIP means that even if there was a "tip" the police know nothing about the credibility of the tipster. What a potential source of mischief and malice if the police could stop and detain on no grounds at all.

Informants are used readily in police investigations. However, NO ONE has ever been arrested on just a tip. Once police offers receive a tip, they then INVESTIGATE and if they discover evidence of a crime, they build their case, and then the prosecuter can take it from there. BTW the media doesn't have the right to detain and prosecute you. Even if they use a reliable source or tip in a story they may still be liable.

the DUI LAWS are way outta hand as it is...put the BAC NO.,back to ; .12..where it used to be..that's more fair than this garbage...you knuckleheads who believe in this new law..need to be straightened out..your letting your moral judgement get in the way of practicallity..you people are going to cry the blues when it happens to you ,or somebody you care about..and for you non-drinkers...go find something better to do than to harass the drinkers...if that's the only immorality we have....then i think...we're doin real well..!..go to ; motorists.org for a better humane DUI LAW..these new laws were arbitrarily made and need to be changed..!

DeeStyle1 01:51 PMOct 21 2009 >>>>HEY YOU, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE COPS HATE TO DO THE MOST, IS PULL OVER CARS, AND GO OUT TO A HOME WITH A HUSBAND AND WIFE TROUBLE, DON'T TELL ME THEY ARE GOING TO PULL OVER CARS JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT, GET REAL SISTER>>>>>>>>Taking away our rights will not deter drunk drivers. If we allow the cops to pull us over saying they got a tip, we are opening up a can of worms that could lead to marshall law. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Basically, a drunk driving tip is the only crime that doesn't allow you to pull someone over. Interesting. At the same time, tips on other crimes are acceptable. It really is kind of a double standard.

Anyone that drives knows you can't drive across town sober without breaking some law. The favorite stop here seems to be illegal lane change, next is driving erratically. If someone is driving drunk tools exist to make a stop. Roberts is mouthing off and disrespecting his peers.

I agree Larryeart, I wouldn't argue against a police officer stopping the driver and investigating whether the person was breaking the law. But the officer has to make his own observations and base the arrest on that. I don't think it's even necessary for the officer to observe a violation to pull the driver over. Drivers are stopped at random at DWI checkpoints and I have no problem with that either.

Here's how to handle something like this, The arresting officer should have ask the subject for a phone number to have his dispatcher call a family member come and pick this person up, and someone to drive the car home. All is happy in the end and they think twice about doing it again, this is how to build a good relationship between the public and law enforcement.

Today's Judges are insane--If I robbed a bank they would arrest me and convict me without seeing a thing, just going by the facts. If the driver fails a sobriety test then he is drunk, this should be all that they need to convict him. What about check points now? are they still catching drivers for drunk driving??What is their reason for issuing a sobriety test here? they probably did not see you do anything wrong because the line is usually long. If I see a drunk driver you can bet that I will call the police and report them, and hopefully save someones life in the process.

It's the distracted driver that gets in accidents. Drunk or not, it's the distraction part that kills, drunk or not. The system is screwed up, they now use the MADD as an excuse to fine anyone they can, for whatever reason they can. Someday the limit will be .04, which means 1 beer and you go to jail. They need to make it illegal to drive distracted! Period!! And that means these MADD mothers need to pay attention while driving. The distracted driver who causes an accident is not counted as such; it just goes down as another accident.Maybe, if the damn lawyers, cops, and MADD will get together and add another D to MADD, maybe I'll sign their stupid petition. I'll take a drunk driver, anyday, over a distracted driver. Anyday!

Obviously this was a good "tip" to the police that this jerk was driving while indoxicated because he failed the field sobriety tests as well as smelled of alcohol! Therefore, I agree with the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court to refuse the case! I also salute the police officers who followed-up on the tip. Perhaps the saved someone's life! NOBODY SHOULD DRIVE A VEHICLE IF THEY ARE INTOXICATED OR IMPAIRED IN ANY WAY!

All this talk about "rights" and "constitution". Get real. Driving a car is NOT a right, constitutional or otherwise. We are granted a temporary LICENSE by the state IF WE MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS. Driving sober is just one of those CONDITIONS, like BEING ABLE TO SEE is a CONDITION...LOOK up the word LICENSE in the dictionary. A food vendor may be granted a LICENSE to sell food, which is REVOCABLE if he breaks the conditions and seel poisoned food..Duhhhhhhh

Taking away our rights will not deter drunk drivers. If we allow the cops to pull us over saying they got a tip, we are opening up a can of worms that could lead to marshall law. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

DLCulotta 01:45 PMOct 21 2009 There is a big difference between defending the constitution and defending drunk driving folks. Thought that was obvious. Anyway - a "tip" of any kind is not equal to "Probable Cause". It is clearly a reason for authorities to turn their attention to something, but in and of itself a tip is not probable cause. The value of the tip is that is puts police in a position to determine if their is probable cause.---------------Exactly. Cop is tipped that someone is driving drunk, they stop the person to question them. At this point there is no probable cause. Cop smells alcohol on the guys breath, bam, there is probable cause to perform a field sobriety test. It's the same as if I were selling drugs or stolen goods and someone tipped the cops off about me. They could stop and question me, but, unless they find probable cause at that moment, they can't search. If the stolen thing or drugs are in plain view (plain view doctrine), then it is probabl...

OBAMA LISTEN UP, WE DON'T WANT YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE NO MATER HOW GOOD IT SOUNDS, AS LONG AS ITS GOVERNMENT RUN WE DON'T WANT IT, WHAT'S SO HARD ABOUT THAT ,THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING GOVERNMENT RUN, GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD, IF YOU GOT ONE, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN SENSE YOU FOR GET EASY, WE DON'T YOUR GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE PERIOD............ GET IT.

Helenndappraiser: I know everything about what you blogged. I'm a retired DEA so I know a lot of law enforcement officers, attorney's and judges.You missed my point - there was no probable cause. The dispatcher shouldn't even have called the patrol officer. The officer was right in not stopping the driver. Some people call 911 indiscriminately; ex: scorned woman. Are you scorned? Better yet, are you drunk?You are way off the mark with your comments. This isn't about testing for alcohol content. I do agree with one point: Always demand a hospital blood test - never allow a breathalyzer test; they run on the high side.

Chief Justice Roberts & Scalia both agree we should give police officers the right to pull over someone on just an anonymous tip. Now, I'm not a constitutional scholar but shouldn't these guys be? An anonymous tip constitutes probable cause as much as a rumor constitues fact.

Walkabjdog:Oh thats a GREAT analogy! Leave it to a right wing fascist to compare the breakdown in security on 9/11 to the police stopping people absent probable cause. I guess once a fascist, always a fascist!

Let me tell you from personal experience..More crimes, that people will ever know, are solved and prevented by police using informants. That's the same as a "tip". Take that away and the bad guys win. Also, why is the media given a free pass using the term "reliable source" when printing a story about someone. Is that not the same as a "tip". The constituation protects the media but not the police. Media stories can ruin someones life alot more than a cop stopping a guy on a backstreet to check him out. The left bends the rules to suit themselves.

So how can we enforce the no drinking and dri8ving laws without infringing on everyone's rights? How about the first DWI gets your license taken away permanantly and the second DWI or driving without a license gets you life in prison. That should do it and no ones rights have been tread upon.

There is a big difference between defending the constitution and defending drunk driving folks. Thought that was obvious. Anyway - a "tip" of any kind is not equal to "Probable Cause". It is clearly a reason for authorities to turn their attention to something, but in and of itself a tip is not probable cause. The value of the tip is that is puts police in a position to determine if their is probable cause.

My husband and I were on the Long Island Expressway one night heading eastbound. From the Queens line we spotted an old Cadillac weaving back and forth between the three lanes of the highway, speeding up, slowing down, etc.,--all classic signs of someone driving while under the influence of something. I was driving so my husband used his cell phone to call 911. We got a call back on his cell from highway patrol in the area of the expressway. We told the officer where we were located, how fast we were going, and he told us where he was going to be getting on to the expressway. He was ahead of us and seeing him come down the ramp onto the road, we flashed our lights and managed to direct him right in behind the drunk driver, while we followed from behind. He followed the driver for almost two miles before pulling him over. He called us back to tell us we were spot on about the DWI.I like to think that we saved a life that night, or maybe more. But this officer took our call s...

the hub around D.C,gets ro tax money tothrow araound anyway..this guy spends more time in the mirror than he does on being a decent justice...this "WITCH HUNT".. for DUI offenders is already "OVER-THE-TOP" with penalties...in factthe laws were arbitrarily made....thee newest laws are really ridiculus...wait til your lovedones get nailed for 1 of these...it's a joke..it'snot made to save lives from the big bad drunks...it'smeant to make revenue for the already over paid thieves..!..the new law says..that even if you blow a .07,or lower...you can still be charged with dui,if you are too fast on a stop sign,or no signal,or anything that could even be a minor traffic violation...it's ridiculus and for commercial,it's .02...this is garbage..!

If someone tips off a cop that I MAY have sold drugs to someone and they take down my license plate, the cops can pull me over and question me based on that tip. Reason being, a possible crime was in progress. Last I checked drunk driving was a crime. While I don't agree with a cop stopping you for anything or randomly, someone calling in a tip saying a crime may have been committed or is in progress is usually enough for probably cause to stop and question. Of course, it appears that drunk driving is the exception to the rule.

Trust me VA is the worst police state in America. It is still 1949 in VA and if a cop walks up and busts you in the mouth for nothing there is nothing you can do about it. There were 3 of us in an auto parts store, a cop grabbed my younger brother in a rear chock while the counter man was screaming it wasn't him. When we got the inbred bastard to let him go he said nothing as being sorry for being stupid. And in VA you can not take a cop to a state court. So there is nothing we can do to get back at these morons. I did have a friend that beat the hell out of one but he paid big time for that but still said it was worth it.

If the police are allowed to pull someone over on an "anonymous tip, then all they have to do to pull over a driver any time is to say they had an anonyous tip and who knows the difference. We would all be in trouble of losing one more of our rights. I dont like drunk drivers on the road either, but i dont like losing all my rights just to make it more convenient for the law to make another bust.

If want to keep people safe. Thow the constition out and make it a police state. Take away everyone's rights and freedoms. Tell them what to do and how to do it and when to do it. Don't use soap in the bath tub because you might slip. Don't drive because someone could run over you. Let the government take control of everything. Let them take away all your cars ,sharp objects, guns and alcohol because you could hurt or kill someone. Would that make everyone happy?

sgk8110: You display a typical police officer's ability to bend the truth just the way they do when they testilie in court. The article did NOT say he slowed down for the intersection for which he had the right-of-way, and it did NOT say he stopped short of the intersection with a stop sign. It said he drove slowly through an intersection at which he did not have to stop (as in, he wasn't speeding), and put on his brake lights well in advance of a red light (as in, he didn't have to slam on the brakes because of inatentativeness). The reason an anonymous tip is not enough for a stop without corroboration is because someone could just phone in a malicious report and you would be subjected to a stop without probable cause. Fourth Amendment ring a bell?

You Bigg Fagg 01:38 PMOct 21 2009 I don't believe police have the right to pull over African Americans without probable cause based on what they witness.SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN RACIAL PROFILING FOR ANY REASON?

NYCCPR- the tip does not automatically send anyone to jail, c'mon, be real. The anonymous tip should be sufficient CAUSE for the officer to stop the car, however-after all driving is NOT a constitutional right. It is NOT the same as the cops searching your house-you have a (revocable) license to drive). Once the officer stops the car HE makes investigation/determination of sobriety through his own PROFESSIONAL observations. Any subsequent arrest would then be based on the professional police officer's observations & tests, not just on an anonymous caller.

First of all the tip shoul;dn't be anonymous. A nme should be given. Another driver on the road is not a valid judge of a drivers sobriety. Police need to acertain that for themselves. If a driver is seen weaving by officers then that is cause to be stopped,

If reported, the officer should have the right to pull a driver over and pass judgement whether the driver is impaired for him/herself. If in question, the officer should be able to test that driver. Our freedom isn't worth much if it is cut short by a drunk driver. We all deserve a chance.

A car with three teenagers crashed into a palm tree across the street from my home. The driver was killed the other two were badly injured. When the coroner came and the body was removed they pulled out a bottle of alcohol. The site of this was very sad and all day long people built a memorial by the tree. This sight broke my heart and yes alcohol and driving are a deadly mix. No one has a right to defend drinking and driving and I do not see a civil rights violation if some one reports you drunk and a cop pulls you over. Just the opposite if the cop does not pull that person over my rights are violated because my life is in danger and the police did nothing to stop it , because the law did not allow it. God Bless our law enforcement officers thruout our nation.

Probable cause was the tip.......the proof was when he was pulled over and he WAS DRUNK....if he was innocent then he would have been sent on his way.I see no problem with busting his sorry drunk @$$....He was breaking the law the second he got behind the wheel. He was violating everyone else's rights by putting the public @ risk............can't believe people are defending a drunk driver.........probably because they are drunks too...........Ted Kennedy wanna be's

GaMay9 01:34 PMOct 21 2009*****Have you ever been told what happens when someone is stopped for DUI? They get a breath test. A test that screens for a balance of alcohol in the blood when measuring the breath in the lungs (very mathematical, so I am keeping it simple). It was my experience that people who were truly drunk, and had priors for DUI, refused the test. Prove your innocence - ask for Preliminary Breath Test or take the more involved breath test. Innocent people embrace the chance to prove their innocence.

There are valid arguements on BOTH sides of this. Maybe the answer lies somewhere in between. Should we "split justice"?........allow certain search and siezures, and not others? I don't know. Drive by any bar and look in the parking lot. All those cars are being driven by ppl drinking.

Illegal search and seizure will reach new heights with this President if we allow him to stay in office past 2012 and don't get control of the congress in 2010. We need to stop all the tax and spenders..............doesn't matter what side of the aisle they are sitting on.

forget the tipster angle goes against right to privacy. don't give the nazi's freen reign over your life. my big beef with the cops here are they don't pull cars over at night driving with there lights off down city streets. 3 times i have seen cars without their lights on at intersections with a cop at intersection too and they didn't even attempt to pull the cars over. go figure. 4th time i almost got t-boned making a right on a street by a car doing over 50 without any lights on. if the police would start doing the job their paid for ie patrolling and eat their donuts on theirdays off then we wouldn't have to worry about false tips just to get revenge on people.

TCtomthumb69 01:30 PMOct 21 2009 If the courts start prosecuting people from heresay, then we are all in trouble. They need facts, witnesses and evidence and without it would be dangerous for everyone----------------------You can't prosecute from hearsay. This is a basic fact. It's what you can prove in court. Hearsay, or a tip that a crime has been or is being committed is normally enough reason for a cop to question someone. If the tip is false, no tickets or arrests are issued. If no tickets or arrests are made, you don't go to court. Someone giving a tip is essentially a witness. You can't prosecute without facts, that of course should be common knowledge.

I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD GO OUT TONIGHT AND SIT AT A BAR AND COUNT DRINKS OF SOMEONE YOU DONT KNOW, , NEXT MAKE A CALL FROM SOMEONE ELSES CELL PHONE TO THE PD.. AND RUIN SOMEONES DAY AND MAYBE YEAR... AND BE THE HERO. JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT....GOT TO KEEP THE BOYS IN BLUE BUSY..... JUST BAN BOOZE THAT SHOULD FIX EVERYTHING!!!!!

Apparently the Chief Justice neeeds to re-read his constitution and bill of rights again. While drunk driving is a horrific crime, granting the police the right to arbitrarily pull people over or arrest them without probable cause is an even more dangerous concept. From a practical point of view, anyone can claim to be a tipster and tell the police anything, true or not, with motives that may not be appropriate. There is a reason that the police need to actually SEE a crime in progress ... it protects ALL of us as a society. "Innocent until proven guilty", remeber, Chief Justice? Another little rule you seem to have forgotten.

Larryeart 01:31 PMOct 21 2009 Driving a car is NOT a protected constitutional RIGHT- it is only a privilege granted by the state, if one meets certain requirements. I can't see where the problem is here- the driver has no constitutional rights to hide behind============ Not according to liberals and the ACLU.

Greenblatj

08:36 PMOct
21 2009

Look how far we've come: Not many years ago drunk
driving, wife beating and child abuse were personal and family problems, not
big-time public crimes. Now we have good laws and people trained to enforce
them. Let's not go overboard and pull over people who haven't done anything
wrong. We don't want a police state.

SRTHREAD

12:27 AMOct
21 2009

IF the police HAD STOPPED the car that hit me BEFORE
it struck I wouldn't be HANDICAPPED for the rest of my life!!! .........no she
didn't drive irratically or speed- just "forgot" to STOP at a red light and I
got in her way because I had actually stopped for the light- stupid me.....the
bright side= I with my new car (that I saved for 18 years for) stopped her from
injuring or killing others......to those of you and the judges who think
drinkers driving should not be stopped BEFORE hurting others- or forgiven if
they are stopped- I just hope this doesn't have to happen to you or yours before
you see the light of sanity!!!!